Options
1892 Columbian Half Dollar with Cameo appearance and proof-like fields question...
devious
Posts: 1,690 ✭
My question got ignored in my other thread so I figured it deserved a thread of its own.
I picked up an 1892 Columbian half-dollar in a pcgs rattler from a fellow right over the boarder in Wisconsin. Got it at a fantastic price and had no idea that it would show up looking as fantastic as it does. Both the obverse and reverse exhibit proof-like fields while the devices have a cameo appearance when the fields are lit up under a light source. My question is, what are some diagnostics to establish a proof from a proof-like and are there a lot of proof-like halves around? Does NGC designate them with a PL in slab? Not that it matters. I prefer it in a rattler, but I'd like something for comparison.
Thank you!
Aaron
I picked up an 1892 Columbian half-dollar in a pcgs rattler from a fellow right over the boarder in Wisconsin. Got it at a fantastic price and had no idea that it would show up looking as fantastic as it does. Both the obverse and reverse exhibit proof-like fields while the devices have a cameo appearance when the fields are lit up under a light source. My question is, what are some diagnostics to establish a proof from a proof-like and are there a lot of proof-like halves around? Does NGC designate them with a PL in slab? Not that it matters. I prefer it in a rattler, but I'd like something for comparison.
Thank you!
Aaron
0
Comments
There are quite a few PL specimens of the 1892 Columbian halves. They made over 100 proofs--the first 100 coins, plus coin #400, #1492, and #1892. Because of these scattered proofs, the dies were in a highly polished state that gave many circulation strikes a PL look. The true proofs were struck multiple times, leading to many of the key diagnostics.
The first place to look to see if you have a true proof vs. PL circulation strike is near the rim where the denticles meet the rim. A true proof will have a squared-off sharp ridge where the denticles meet the rim. This is due to the multiple strikes raising up the metal on the coin to fill the die. A PL circulation strike will have a rounded edge, because the single strike didn't completely raise the metal.
A second place to look is for the extra detail in the water, ship's wood, and sail ribs on the reverse. Proofs will have more detail here.
A third diagnostic that graders can use on a raw coin is the edge reeding. Proof reeds will be sharply defined, and will feel defined in your fingers. Circulation strike reeding is more rounded.
A final key diagnostic is a small die crack that is visible only on the proofs due to the multiple stikings. There is a small die crack on a reverse sail near the bottom of the center sail. It only shows up on proofs that were struck more than once, and the metal raised up into the crack.
I hope this helps.
PROOF PR67 (Left) vs Circulation Strike PL 66 (Right)
PROOF PR67 (Left) vs Circulation Strike MS 67 (Right)
I really stink at imaging and no image I can produce will ever do this coin justice. But I did want to stop by and say thank you for your response. And here are some images that I just took. I will be sure to have one of our famous forum photographers photo this one. It really is so much more beautiful than my photos here show. It has almost a dcam appearance in hand. I tried to show the cameo appearance with my brightest best light source (the bathroom light) Ha Ha!
Anyway, thank you again for your reply!
Aaron
Edited to add: Not bad for a $45 dollar purchase sight unseen.
Camelot
The die with that line in the sail was used to make both Proofs and P-L's. They are often difficult to tell apart.
TD
Still the PL's command a very nice premium.
Buying top quality Seated Dimes in Gem BU and Proof.
Buying great coins - monster eye appeal only.
(Possibly also used by sheep ranchers)
Kurt,
I would just like to say how much your response to this thread is appreciated.
Your detailed answers to the OP and graphics are very well done.
Thank you for sharing your knowledge.
R.I.P. Bear
and finding one, is to locate
a great treasure indeed.
Camelot
<< <i>There are quite a few PL specimens of the 1892 Columbian halves. They made over 100 proofs--the first 100 coins, plus coin #400, #1492, and #1892. Because of these scattered proofs, the dies were in a highly polished state that gave many circulation strikes a PL look. The true proofs were struck multiple times, leading to many of the key diagnostics. >>
This is great and interesting info.
Have coins #400, #1492 and #1892 been positively identified using die state and other diagnostics?
<< <i>
<< <i>There are quite a few PL specimens of the 1892 Columbian halves. They made over 100 proofs--the first 100 coins, plus coin #400, #1492, and #1892. Because of these scattered proofs, the dies were in a highly polished state that gave many circulation strikes a PL look. The true proofs were struck multiple times, leading to many of the key diagnostics. >>
This is great and interesting info.
Have coins #400, #1492 and #1892 been positively identified using die state and other diagnostics? >>
The problem with Columbian and Isabella proof strikings is that the same die was used for the proofs and the mint state coins. PCGS no longer will designate an Isabella proof because of this. Also, with the 1893 proof Columbian, PCGS is very hesitant about giving the Proof designation. The only real diagnostic for a proof is strike, field reflectivitly and provenance.
TRUTH
- Bob -
MPL's - Lincolns of Color
Central Valley Roosevelts
Proof, is a method of manufacture.
Don't believe everything you've seen in print:
No Coins For Columbian Exposition, 1892-93, Struck in Proof
Occasionally we are asked if any of the half dollars of the Columbian Exposition of 1892-93 were struck in proof. The reason for the inquiry perhaps is the fact that occasionally these coins are listed as “proofs” are offered for sale. In the interest of fairness and honesty in such matters we have been shown a copy of a letter signed by M.M. O’Reilly, Acting Director of the Mint, dated May 14, 1936, the last sentence of which reads as follows:
“No proof coins were struck in the Columbian commemorative series of 1892-93.”
<< <i>There are many "stories" in numismatics.
Proof, is a method of manufacture.
Don't believe everything you've seen in print:
No Coins For Columbian Exposition, 1892-93, Struck in Proof
Occasionally we are asked if any of the half dollars of the Columbian Exposition of 1892-93 were struck in proof. The reason for the inquiry perhaps is the fact that occasionally these coins are listed as “proofs” are offered for sale. In the interest of fairness and honesty in such matters we have been shown a copy of a letter signed by M.M. O’Reilly, Acting Director of the Mint, dated May 14, 1936, the last sentence of which reads as follows:
“No proof coins were struck in the Columbian commemorative series of 1892-93.” >>
Obviously, Mr. O'Reilley missed the Remington Typewriter promotion of 1892.
TRUTH
Many members on this forum that now it cannot fit in my signature. Please ask for entire list.
<< <i>If there are proofs it would be a big mistake if pcgs didn't pick it up.... >>
I thought DaveE just said that collectors don't know anything and TPGs know everything? Something to that effect anyway.
Also, thanks for these wonderful responses in this thread. I merely forgot to say thank you to Kove a while ago and wanted to show him I appreciated his response. It's nice to have received much more attention than it did over a month ago. Thank you everyone!
Eric
Miles stated that PCGS has backed off on calling Isabella quarters proof.
He stated that PCGS is absolutely still certifying 1892 Columbian halves as proof, but they MUST have the die line in the sail that I highlighted above in order to be certified as proof. It's great to have folks from PCGS make themselves available at Summer Seminar and shows to share knowledge like this.
a proof-like surface somewhat.
roadrunner
<< <i>
<< <i>If there are proofs it would be a big mistake if pcgs didn't pick it up.... >>
I thought DaveE just said that collectors don't know anything and TPGs know everything? Something to that effect anyway.
>>
It would seem DaveE knows TGGs know how take pictures better than collectors
One is 1892.
The other is 1893. Different dies.
Which are rarer 1892 proofs/PLs or 1893 proofs/PLs ?
A 1892 PL64 sold for about $500 on Teletrade not long ago.
The 1892 PL is very common. Take note that many PLs in NGC holders are not true PLs and really skew the population. Sometimes NGC can be very generous with the PL designation. On the other hand, a nice 1892 PL can be a sight to behold, especially with color. Deep mirrors are a must. Baggy coins look rather unimpressive.
TRUTH
There are many more examples of 1892 PL than 1893 PL, likely because the proofs created for coins #1492 and 1892 led to re-polishing the dies for the 1892 coins. NGC is the only service to formally designate these as PL (so we don't know how many PL coins are in PCGS holders), but NGC has certified nearly 400 1892 PLs, and about 200 1893 PLs.
One other thing to note on these coins is that for the proofs both die and planchet were specially prepared, while the PLs were regular planchets struck from dies polished several strikes earlier.
<< <i>
One other thing to note on these coins is that for the proofs both die and planchet were specially prepared, while the PLs were regular planchets struck from dies polished several strikes earlier. >>
You to know these very , what are the difference in the planchets? Would it not seem possible that say #1492 could very well be the pictured coin?
Any help would be appreciated.
<< <i>Trying to determine if this is a business strike or a proof like / proof. Thoughts on this coin as to which variation it might be?
Any help would be appreciated.
Business strike 100% worth only its silver content. There is enough disagreement with the Gems out there for Proofs, XF do not get much consideration,
Welcome to the forum
<< <i>There was a thread with a coin Julian had (?) long ago about these with diagnostics.
Eric >>
glad you mentioned that thread. it was a rather, vigorous discussion, and rightly so. just because the mint says one thing doen'st make it true. if we just took the word of the mint, other documents, books, records, tpgs etc, and ignored expert research and opinions, we would miss out on quite a few exciting esoteric numismatic items.
that thread about the julian coin and others should still be in the archives. i don't recall it being so vigorous a conversation that it was removed.
.
It is back there in the archives. I thought I posted these links:
JadeRareCoins Columbian 50C Update (part 2)
The first part of the discussion:
JadeRareCoins Columbian 50C Part 1
Eric
I've been a lurker on the sports card forum for a while and need an excuse for signing up to participate on the boards....LOL.
-Steve
<< <i>
<< <i>Trying to determine if this is a business strike or a proof like / proof. Thoughts on this coin as to which variation it might be?
Any help would be appreciated.
Business strike 100% worth only its silver content. There is enough disagreement with the Gems out there for Proofs, XF do not get much consideration,
Welcome to the forum >>
Thanks
<< <i>Hello,
It is back there in the archives. I thought I posted these links:
JadeRareCoins Columbian 50C Update (part 2)
The first part of the discussion:
JadeRareCoins Columbian 50C Part 1
Eric >>
Those threads were posted by me back when I owned Jade Rare Coin. (note that I kept my avatar)
I remember discussing the coin with Anthony Swiatek at a major show. He said it was a proof and explained why. I asked him to walk with me to the grading services for a walk through submission, so that he could explain to the services, but he said that they didn't care. I then sat with David Lange at NGC and he agreed that it was a proof, but told me that he could not lobby for the designation on my behalf because it didn't work that way. Later I was at lot viewing and there was an NGC proof example in the sale. I had my coins with me, so I matched the coins side-by-side, and my example had deeper mirrors and bolder detail. The coin was eventually sold as a PL. I wonder if it ever made it into a proof holder.....
Eric
did it have this little line in the sail? Do you recall?
I do not recall seeing the small die break. I am not sure that is the best diagnostic anyway, since the proofs were technically struck at different times it is possible that the same proof dies were used to strike business strikes, hence the fully P/L Mint State coins that are extant. I think that I have high resolution photos of this coin. I will check my archives when I get home.
<< <i>did it have this little line in the sail? Do you recall?
I do not recall seeing the small die break. I am not sure that is the best diagnostic anyway, since the proofs were technically struck at different times it is possible that the same proof dies were used to strike business strikes, hence the fully P/L Mint State coins that are extant. I think that I have high resolution photos of this coin. I will check my archives when I get home. >>
The die break is one of two positive IDs for the proof 1892 coins. The die crack only shows up on the proofs, as they were struck with extra striking pressure. When the non-proof coins were struck, the pressure was reduced and the metal did not push up into the die break. I've never seen a PL coin show the die crack. Every true proof I have ever seen (a couple of dozen) has had the die crack in the sail, but it's small enough that no one would notice unless they knew exactly where to look.
I need to update my information above to include the other definitive die diagnostic on the obverse, if I can find a good photo.
Was the denticle observation valid? That seemed iron clad?
Eric
Kove, thanks for the information. The die crack theory is new to me, but I get your drift. Sounds valid. Unfortunately it would be difficult to see in the photos on the auction sites. The die break is so subtle that you would need to examine each proof "in hand."
Was the denticle observation valid? That seemed iron clad?
Hi Eric. Sure has been a long time! Yes, the denticle observation is valid in my mind. I would like to hear what others have to say.
Dennis, you need to get past that coin ...
NEVER!!
You are probably right though, especially considering that I no longer own it.
<< <i> I thought I posted these links: Eric >>
dang i just realized this thread itself is in the archives too >< although how long does a thread have to exist to be considered "in the archives?"
1. LOL
<< <i>NEVER!! It is a proof I tell ya ... a PROOF! >>
2. ROTFLMAO
be careful matching up diagnostics with proof and sp coins with bs issues as it is fairly common for proof dies (obv) and/or (rev) to be used to run out a few examples and a proof isn't just designated by being a die that struck proof coinage, the main component it seems is specially prepared flans. you probably already know but i'm posting for the readers cuz it seems this can never be said enough.
.